Posted on 12/08/2008 5:59:32 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.
A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.
So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might.
First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a “global war on terror”.
Second, it could be done. The transport and communications revolutions have shrunk the world so that, as Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent Australian historian, has written: “For the first time in human history, world government of some sort is now possible.” Mr Blainey foresees an attempt to form a world government at some point in the next two centuries, which is an unusually long time horizon for the average newspaper column.
But – the third point – a change in the political atmosphere suggests that “global governance” could come much sooner than that. The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.
Barack Obama, America’s president-in-waiting, does not share the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements and treaties. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he argued that: “When the world’s sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following.” The importance that Mr Obama attaches to the UN is shown by the fact that he has appointed Susan Rice, one of his closest aides, as America’s ambassador to the UN, and given her a seat in the cabinet.
A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.
The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them.
These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland. Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language. It emphasises the need for American leadership and uses the term, “responsible sovereignty” – when calling for international co-operation – rather than the more radical-sounding phrase favoured in Europe, “shared sovereignty”. It also talks about “global governance” rather than world government.
But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on. Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.
So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government.
But let us not get carried away. While it seems feasible that some sort of world government might emerge over the next century, any push for “global governance” in the here and now will be a painful, slow process.
There are good and bad reasons for this. The bad reason is a lack of will and determination on the part of national, political leaders who – while they might like to talk about “a planet in peril” – are ultimately still much more focused on their next election, at home.
But this “problem” also hints at a more welcome reason why making progress on global governance will be slow sledding. Even in the EU – the heartland of law-based international government – the idea remains unpopular. The EU has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for “ever closer union” have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.
The world’s most pressing political problems may indeed be international in nature, but the average citizen’s political identity remains stubbornly local. Until somebody cracks this problem, that plan for world government may have to stay locked away in a safe at the UN.
One more.
ping.
Please check out my tagline.
I can see it, easily. Especially after being reminded that the Koran says its not held against a Muslim when they lie to the infidel to gain whatever they are after, okay to make promises to the infidel and not keep them, and then there is this:
http://www.freedomscost.net/?p=1466
I know the translation could have been anybody’s but still, if it is true, it’s just more proof.
It’s coming. And those who are not aware, are like the bridesmaids who didn’t have enough oil for their lamps when the bridegroom was coming.
The REAL problem is that so many, such as the editorial writer, consider the people's desire to be governed locally to be a "problem". He is admitting that the only way the one-worlders are going to reach their goal is if they are able to shove it down our throats.
Obama’s UN Treaty
http://blog.barofintegrity.us/2008/05/05/obamas-bill-s2433-—uns-millennium-declaration.aspx
I have always supported the establishment of a single world government. As long as the government is the US government.
Well, thank God he didn’t get any of his bills passed in the senate! Did he try any other stupid things?
He is admitting that the only way the one-worlders are going to reach their goal is if they are able to shove it down our throats.
Which is the standard complaint of all dictatorships and vanguardist movements througout history.
You mistake the writer's postion. That's his "good reason" for the slow progress to a state of One World. One People. One Neck. (the bad one being the current small fish don't want to give up rule of their small ponds)
In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic
***In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.***
Bump
Gort! Klatu mirada nicto!
A world government can only—ONLY—be established and maintained through the consistent use of brutal force.
Like a corporation that gets too big, becomes inefficient, and falls to its more nimble competitors, governments too get too big and inefficient. Unfortunately they rarely have competitors (although the Governors Association could one day become a de facto competitor to the standing Federal Government who knows.....).
A world government would have to have such thinly spread and tenuous power to have any hope of succeeding, I honestly think the only thing a theoretically successful world government could do is to provide a universal currency and smooth over free trade laws. It would be arguable whether it actually was a government or not.
Give a world government the force that all governments need to maintain power (police, military, materiel, etc.) and you have a worldwide Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. The amount of force required to keep it together would *necessitate* that much force.
The Progressives are so very thankful that most Americans wish to remain totally ignorant as Agenda 21 takes shape within their communities. Another couple of years and the world will be working under a much different financial system than we now have. Regional ministers will control the environment of entire continents and life in general will be so much easier as socialism advances.
These changes will all have been necessary due to the current financial recession/depression. When the general population is living in panic they will agree to almost any new ideas, even ones that strip them of their rights and liberty.
As major corporation declare bankruptcy, one after another, and banks fail too fast to keep track of it will be only natural that people will become afraid. Already this year 261 branches of 14 or 15 banks have closed. The commercial loans are just beginning to fall into foreclosure. We still have another year before we’ll see the bottom of the residental market.
Don’t worry though because the socialists will put their plan to work for a much stronger economic plan where government owns a part of and controls all the large businesses. if you are young enough and don’t know very much history, you’ll be happy.
I’m okay with it as long as I get to own the slaves. Hell, what’s a bloated, multi-national, master race government good for if it can’t bestow slavery and fiefdom on people.
Ping!
mirada?
Have you noticed that we are back into the ages of industrial majors? Remember when AT&T was the primary communications company in the USA and Bell Canada took care of our neighbor. There was only four or five steel companies and they owned almost all of the other smaller ones. Five major car manufacturers. A dozen major airlines and half a dozen aircraft manufacturers. Half a dozen major chemical companies who own or control all of the fertilizer trade which also own or control the major seed companies. Half a dozen meat processors who control all of the livestock feed lots who are the major buyers of all ranch raised beef. The same for fowl.
Each and every industry is reliant upon the others in some manner. Make major changes in one and you affect all of them. People are even easier to control. Cause a shortage in anything they rely on and they’ll move. The days of the self reliant family is coming to a close. Most folks don’t have any idea how to live with electricity for six months. Offer them low cost electricity and they’ll move to it.
Notice that I haven’t used force or threats to shape any part of this civilization. I haven’t given this post more than ten minutes total thought. Imagine how smoothly I could shape it with a weeks worth of notations. You could do it too if you thought about it.
What the heck are you talking about?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.